Pssst...buddy...wanna make a nuclear bomb?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

These guys take incompetence to unimagined levels...

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.

The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.

“For the U.S. to toss a match into this flammable area is very irresponsible,” said A. Bryan Siebert, a former director of classification at the federal Department of Energy, which runs the nation’s nuclear arms program. “There’s a lot of things about nuclear weapons that are secret and should remain so.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/mi...artner=homepage

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Man, you're digging up all kinds of crap to shield Kerry from fire.

[AURaptor 1,126]

No kidding, what next ? More Iran/Contra revelations? The latest on Watergate ?

Psssst. Kerry still thinks the troops are idiots.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Man, you're digging up all kinds of crap to shield Kerry from fire.

You drug Kerry into this. Bush gets a pass b/c of Kerry? You are such a bootlicker.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I know your shell game too well.

I'm curious as to why the NYT's is suddenly concerned about posting sensitive documents. Seems they did a little leaking for themselves not too long ago and you were good with it then.

This is just another smoke and mirrors campaign to turn the spotlight off of Kerry. You failed.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I know your shell game too well.

I'm curious as to why the NYT's is suddenly concerned with posting documents. Seems they did a little leaking here not too long ago and all was well then.

This is just another smoke and mirrors campaign to turn the spotlight off of Kerry. You failed.

Hey Glenda, the spotlight got placed on Kerry to shift the focus from real issues. The Repugs don't like dealing with real issues b/c the voters are obviously upset with the direction of the country. Kerry's apologized and gone home, so we're back to how grossly incompetent these bozos are.

If a Dem had done this, y'all would be going ballistic. If a Dem had done it, it would still be stupid and incompetent.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

So Iraq had all the know-how, all the plans, all the designs, "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building." Unless they were keeping these documents around as future material for paper airplanes, all this stuff constituted a plan of action for some point in the future; but to complete creating these weapons, they would have needed stuff. I don't know an exact list of what they would have needed, but a "how to" guide is most likely easily accessible somewhere on internet. Based on what I've been taught so far in order to become an intellectually challenged military man; it sounds like you need a firing mechanism, some fairly common industrial machining equipment, material for the bomb casing of course, amd some fairly common conventional explosives, which we all know are abundant and easy to get ahold of in Iraq. Oh, and, of course, the nuclear material itself.

They would have needed something like... um... you know... what's that stuff called? Oh, that's right.........Yellowcake. But we all know Iraq would never ever make an effort to get yellowcake. Joe Wilson had tea with officials in Niger who said so

You know, it's good to see that the New York Times is now firmly against publicizing sensitive and classified information.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

So Tex, I'm waiting ... which is the truth, O great mouthpiece of the DNC? That Iraq had no nuclear weapons program and anyone who says otherwise is a liar? Or that Iraq actually did have a nuclear weapons program, indeed, one that was so well-developed that posting information (pre-1991) about it is a grave security threat?

One or the other of these statements may be true, but not both.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Guys, aren't we missing the forest for the trees here. A frickin' guide to building an atom bomb was on one of our own gov't sites and this becomes a bickerfest over Kerry and whether Iraq could build a bomb?

Regardless of who was responsible for allowing a document like this to be publicly accessible, this is a big time bonehead mistake by someone. THAT's the point.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

The thing that made me bite on this was the immediate "That incompetent Bush administration" crack that accompanies any alleged "injustice" that happens in our government.

The article clearly states that the IAEA isn't even sure anyone saw what was posted. Secondly, these 12 pages of pre-1991 documents were in amongst "a vast archive of Iraqi documents" on the website. Lastly, as soon as this was discovered, the site was shut down.

You're right Titan, it was a mistake. The mistake was corrected, so why was this article even posted to begin with?

[Tigermike 3,055]

Guys, aren't we missing the forest for the trees here. A frickin' guide to building an atom bomb was on one of our own gov't sites and this becomes a bickerfest over Kerry and whether Iraq could build a bomb?

Regardless of who was responsible for allowing a document like this to be publicly accessible, this is a big time bonehead mistake by someone. THAT's the point.

When did it go on the site? Who approved it and how long has it been there?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Guys, aren't we missing the forest for the trees here. A frickin' guide to building an atom bomb was on one of our own gov't sites and this becomes a bickerfest over Kerry and whether Iraq could build a bomb?

Regardless of who was responsible for allowing a document like this to be publicly accessible, this is a big time bonehead mistake by someone. THAT's the point.

When did it go on the site? Who approved it and how long has it been there?

According to the story...

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

As far as who approved these specific documents to go up, I don't think we know that yet. Bush gave the OK to put up the site but I don't know who was supposed to vet the documents.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Guys, aren't we missing the forest for the trees here. A frickin' guide to building an atom bomb was on one of our own gov't sites and this becomes a bickerfest over Kerry and whether Iraq could build a bomb?

Regardless of who was responsible for allowing a document like this to be publicly accessible, this is a big time bonehead mistake by someone. THAT's the point.

Yes, it's a screw up. Not a small one either. Who ever is responsible should be canned, or worse. Same goes for all the leaks we've had concerning our national secrets.

BUT another point that the Dems are overlooking - Saddam had plans for this stuff. Why have them if not to use them, hmmmm??

Bush didn't lie. Another DNC campaign topic blown to hell.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Well, I think that's an overstatement. These were plans for building a device, not the device itself. The administration's case was the Saddam had WMDs, not simply that he wanted them or had plans to make them.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Well, I think that's an overstatement. These were plans for building a device, not the device itself. The administration's case was the Saddam had WMDs, not simply that he wanted them or had plans to make them.

Oh please, that's worse than even Hans Blix could come up with ! Why have plans if you're not planning to do something with them? And Iraq had WMD, btw. Just the liberal media won't tell you the whole story. Makes W look too good. Best to keep it unreported. Or simply say " oh, those gas ordinances were outdated,and beyond their expiration date " .

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Oh please, that's worse than even Hans Blix could come up with ! Why have plans if you're not planning to do something with them?

That's irrelevant. The Iraq war being a necessity was not predicated on "planning to build" WMDs. It was on possessing them.

And Iraq had WMD, btw. Just the liberal media won't tell you the whole story. Makes W look too good. Best to keep it unreported. Or simply say " oh, those gas ordinances were outdated,and beyond their expiration date " .

I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the WMDs we were saying they had in the lead up to this war were actually there. These gas ordinances in question were not sufficient to have taken on this kind of operation and if this is all that would have been presented to us as the reason to go, I would have openly opposed it. Rather, I was told there was much more in the way of WMDs than we've found any solid evidence of. Now whether one believes the administration was completely above board with us and was just given bad information or deliberately lied to us is a matter of interpretation I suppose. But the bottom line is, the reasons given for going into this war did not turn out to be true...or at least not true to a sufficient degree that it warranted us taking our focus off Afghanistan and creating what amounts to a two front war.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Freedom of Information

"Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to leverage the Internet to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."

New York Times

U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer

November 3, 2006

"Last month, a federal judge in Washington, Ricardo Urbina, ordered the Secret Service to disclose two years of visitor logs to [Vice President Cheney's official residence] or explain in detail why the records are exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act. The Justice Department has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to block Judge Urbina's order . . . "Disclosure of the records at issue could reveal an ever-expanding mosaic that would allow observers to chart the course of vice presidential contacts and deliberations in unprecedented fashion," government attorneys argued in a brief filed yesterday."

New York Sun

New Battle Over Executive Privilege Is Looming in Washington

November 1, 2006

So putting atomic bomb plans on the Internet is OK, but releasing official records of visits to the veep's house is not OK.

http://billmon.org/archives/002923.html

The priorities of this administration are mind-boggling. And their biggest argument is that the other side can't be trusted with national security.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

So Tex, I'm waiting ... which is the truth, O great mouthpiece of the DNC? That Iraq had no nuclear weapons program and anyone who says otherwise is a liar? Or that Iraq actually did have a nuclear weapons program, indeed, one that was so well-developed that posting information (pre-1991) about it is a grave security threat?

One or the other of these statements may be true, but not both.

Sorry to keep you waiting, but I work for a living.

This isn't that complicated, TIS. You should be able to follow it. Iraq wasn't that close to having nuclear weapons, but weren't totally without know-how. Sure they wanted them. Most petty dictators around the world do. Some actually have them, but we aren't invading them.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Lack of knowledge has never been an obstacle to any nation in developing nuclear weapons. The problem is in obtaining the necessary materials.

Tex criticized Bush for making the information available, but it did not seem to dawn on him and the rest of the liberal peanut gallery that this was proof Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons....just like Bush said.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The Iraq war being a necessity was not predicated on "planning to build" WMDs. It was on possessing them.

I suppose Saddam was going to build them first, before he had the plans on how to build them?

The evidence is out there, but I'm at a loss as to why the Bush administration won't talk about it more. Maybe because the Press built up this image in everyone's mind of warehouse stockpiles of WMD, much like at the end of Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark movie. The relatively small amount of WMD and WMD related materials , while illegal, likely don't make for such an impressive press conference. Blame the Bush P.R. folks for giving us NOTHING instead, which allows follks like you to say nothing's been found.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Lack of knowledge has never been an obstacle to any nation in developing nuclear weapons. The problem is in obtaining the necessary materials.

Tex criticized Bush for making the information available, but it did not seem to dawn on him and the rest of the liberal peanut gallery that this was proof Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons....just like Bush said.

I don't doubt he was seeking them. Don't doubt he wanted them. That doesn't mean invading and trying to engage in nation building was the answer. Saddam hadn't gotten anywhere. He was contained. Saudi Arabia has been a bigger threat of western focused terrorism for years, but Bush is in bed with the Saudis and won't do a damn thing about it. Where were 15 out of 19 hijackers from?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

The Iraq war being a necessity was not predicated on "planning to build" WMDs. It was on possessing them.

I suppose Saddam was going to build them first, before he had the plans on how to build them?

The evidence is out there, but I'm at a loss as to why the Bush administration won't talk about it more. Maybe because the Press built up this image in everyone's mind of warehouse stockpiles of WMD, much like at the end of Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark movie. The relatively small amount of WMD and WMD related materials , while illegal, likely don't make for such an impressive press conference. Blame the Bush P.R. folks for giving us NOTHING instead, which allows follks like you to say nothing's been found.

If there was credible evidence they wouldn't hesitate to use it. The lie so well with straight faces as it is, if the "evidence" could at least pass the laugh test, they would use it.

[AURaptor 1,126]

If there was credible evidence they wouldn't hesitate to use it. The lie so well with straight faces as it is, if the "evidence" could at least pass the laugh test, they would use it.

There is credible evidence and they refuse to use it. Now you can see why so many on the Right are pisssed off at W.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

If there was credible evidence they wouldn't hesitate to use it. The lie so well with straight faces as it is, if the "evidence" could at least pass the laugh test, they would use it.

There is credible evidence and they refuse to use it. Now you can see why so many on the Right are pisssed off at W.

They are williing to use evidence that isn't credible, but won't use credible evidence? Okay.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

If there was credible evidence they wouldn't hesitate to use it. The lie so well with straight faces as it is, if the "evidence" could at least pass the laugh test, they would use it.

There is credible evidence and they refuse to use it. Now you can see why so many on the Right are pisssed off at W.

If that's true, then they are quite possibly the dumbest human beings on this planet.